Tuesday, October 18, 2016

A Disillusioned Precedent: The Role of the British Monarchy in King Lear (My research analysis)

Share it Please

A Disillusioned Precedent: The Role of the British
Monarchy in King Lear

When conducting a study of any piece
of literature, by any author, at any time, it is almost always possible to
detect clear and present ties to political, social, or economic climate, either
of the time period at which the piece was written, or from the years that
preceded it. Shakespeare’s King Lear is
no exception. While there are ties to the time in which Shakespeare was
writing, it is also possible to detect echoes of the past when reading the
play. These ties are present in the example of King Lear’s personal plight of a
skewed self-image in comparison with various British monarchs who ruled before
Shakespeare’s day. For my argument, I will focus
mainly on the lives and situations of Queen Mathilde, Richard II, and Edward
II. While the lives of these monarchs did not actually follow the downward
spiral of Lear, they did have similar characteristics of disillusionment which
proved detrimental to their reign.

Although it is not clear
whether or not Shakespeare was thinking of these particular monarchs as a model
for King Lear, the similarities between Lear and these unfortunate rulers is
uncanny. For instance, it becomes clear early on in the play that King Lear has
an extremely distorted self-image; although his cravings for flattery and
accolades are almost certainly indicative of a deep-rooted insecurity, Lear’s conscious
mind has created an inflated image of himself and superimposed it over all that
he says and does, making his actions irrational,

impulsive, and tragically, misguided. This is
evident right from the beginning, with his disownment of Cordelia for her
truthful and direct declaration of love for Lear in Act 1, Scene 1. Lear’s own image of himself is so inflated that when
Cordelia’s declaration of daughterly love is delivered following the
flattery-laden declarations made by her sisters, Goneril and Regan, Lear reacts
with outrage and contempt that Cordelia should love him any less, when in
reality, it is Cordelia’s confession that is the most truthful and should be
taken most seriously. This is apparent in Lear’s words to Cordelia following
her declaration:

Although we as readers are made
aware of Lear’s folly in dismissing his youngest daughter, Lear himself remains
unaware of his error for the majority of the play. In his mind, he is
untouchable, and worthy of such accolades and flattery as were delivered by
Goneril and Regan. In this way, Lear is strikingly similar to the early British
monarch, Queen Mathilde. Following the death of her father and brother,
Mathilde returned to England from Germany (where she had lived from an early
age as part of a political marriage to the Holy Roman Emperor until his death)
to ascend to the throne. However, although she was entitled to rule,the people ousted her after she
proved to be a distant, more autocratic ruler (behavior learned as an empress
in Germany) whereas the English people enjoyed at least a small amount of
control over their monarch—the king, or in this case, queen, had to be
acclaimed by the people in order to remain in power. When the English people
refused to accept Mathilde as queen after her imperious behavior towards them,
Mathilde was forced to fight unsuccessfully for many years to return to the
throne. Perhaps if Mathilde had been more aware of the altered reality of her
new situation as Queen of England, she would have behaved differently and been
able to retain her kingdom.

This
overly exaggerated self-importance we see in King Lear is also quite similar to
the behavior of King Richard II. Richard, who had ascended to the throne at the
age of 10, and was successfully suppressing rebellions (Namely the Peasant’s
Revolt of 1381) by 14, began to take on a grandiose view of himself, and
behaved tyrannically, leading to further rebellions, which resulted in his
eventual overthrow by Henry Bolingbroke in 1399. Although it is almost certain
that Richard began well enough, by the end of his reign, he was arguably out of
touch with the reality of his situation, which allowed for his overthrow to be
possible. Likewise, King Lear displays a similar distance from the reality of
his situation, which unfortunately, contributed greatly to his fall from
greatness. This is exhibited well in Act 3, Scene 4, when King Lear marvels at the
situations of many poor citizens of his kingdom:

The fact that Lear was, to this point, unaware of
the poverty of his population speaks to his ignorance and overall distance from
the reality of his situation and that of his kingdom.

One
final example of Lear’s situation in comparison to actual British monarchs can
be found in the ill-fated rule of Edward II. Edward had the misfortune to
follow his legendary father to the throne. Edward II simply was not his father.
He proved to be a disappointment to the monarchy, not only in military and
political matters, but also in personal ones. Although he married Isabella of
France, it was apparent to all that he harbored homosexual attractions to his
squire, Piers Gaveston. This was a problem in the kingdom, not to mention in
his marriage. Eventually, Edward was ousted from the throne by his own wife,
Isabella, and her lover, Roger Mortimer, supported by a faction of angry
Englishmen. By all accounts, he seems to have been completely blindsided by the
betrayal. After the coup, Edward spent the rest of his life in prison, where it
is said Isabella eventually ordered his murder. Had he paid more attention to
his wife, and been more aware of the agitation his actions were causing within
the kingdom, he could have possibly averted or at least delayed his own demise.
As with Edward, King Lear experienced a betrayal within his family, and was
utterly unaware of it until it was too late. Had

he paid a bit more attention to his family
situation, he might have been able to alter his course of action and avert
tragedy.

As
previously stated, it is not possible to determine for certain if Shakespeare
actually took any inspiration for his character of King Lear, the similarities
between Lear and these three particular monarchs of early England are
undeniable.